Techno-progressivism or tech-progressivism citation needed ] is a stance of active support for the convergence of change and social change . Techno-progressives argue that they can be profoundly empowered and emancipatory when they are regulated by their democratic and accountable authorities to ensure that their costs , risks and benefits are all fairly shared by the current stakeholders to those developments. [1][2]


Techno-progressivism maintains that accounts of progress should focus on scientific and technical dimensions, as well as ethical and social ones. For MOST techno-progressive outlook, Then, the growth of scientific knowledge or the accumulation of technological powers will not Represent the achievement of proper progress UNLESS and up to it is accompagné by a just distribution of the costs, Risks, and benefits of These new knowledges and capacities. At the same time, for the most techno-progressive critics and advocates , the achievement of better democracy , greaterfairness , less violence and a ‘wider rights culture, are all desirable, in order Themselves inadequate to confront the Quandaries of contemporary technological societies UNLESS up to and They Are accompagné by progress in science and technology to medium and Implement thesis gains. [2]

Strong techno-progressive positions include media for the civil right of a person to Either Maintain or modify his or her own mind and body , is his or her own terms, through Informed, consensual recourse to, or refusal of, available therapeutic gold Enabling biomedical technology . [3] [ better source needed ]

During the November 2014 Transvision Conference , many of the leading transhumanist organizations signed the Technoprogressive Declaration. The Declaration stated the values ​​of technoprogressivism. [4]

Contrasting stance

Main article: Bioconservatism

Bioconservatism (a portmanteau word-combining ” biology ” and ” conservatism “) is a stanza of hesitancy about technological development Especially if it is Perceived to Threaten Given a social order . Strong bioconservative positions include opposition to genetic modification of food crops , the cloning and genetic engineering of livestock and animals , and, most prominently, rejection of the genetic, prosthetic, and cognitive modification of human beings. and cultural limitations. [1] [2]

Bioconservatives range in political perspective from right-leaning religious and cultural conservatives to left-leaning environmentalists and technology critics . What unites bioconservatives is skepticism about medical and other biotechnological transformations of the living world . [5] [6] [7] [8] Typically less sweeping as a critique of technological society than bioluddism , the perspective is bioconservative caractérisée by ict defense of the natural , Deployed as a moral category. [1][2]

Although techno-progressivism is the stance which contrasts with bioconservatism in the biopolitical spectrum, both techno-progressivism and bioconservatism, in their more moderate expressions, a share of opposing to unsafe, unfair, undemocratic forms of technological development, and both recognize that such developmental modes can facilitate unacceptable recklessness and exploitation , exacerbate injustice and incubate dangerous social discontent. [1] [2]

List of notable techno-progressive social critics

  • Technocritic Dale Carrico with his accounts of techno-progressivism [2]
  • Philosopher Donna Haraway with her accounts of cyborg theory . [9]
  • Media theorist Douglas Rushkoff with his accounts of open source . [10]
  • Cultural critic Mark Dery and his accounts of cyberculture . [11]
  • Science journalist Chris Mooney with his account of the US Republican Party’s “war on science” . [12]
  • Futurist Bruce Sterling with his Viridian design movement . [13]
  • Futurist Alex Steffen and his accounts of bright green environmentalism through the Worldchanging blog. [14]
  • Science journalist Annalee Newitz with her accounts of the Bio punk . [15] [16]
  • Bioethicist James Hughes of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies with his accounts of democratic transhumanism . [17]


Technocritic Dale Carrico, a technically-progressive technician with a shorthand to describe progressive politics that emphasizes technoscientific issues, [18] has expressed concern that some transhumanist ideologues are using the term to describe themselves, with the consequence of possibly social, political, and political, which may be incompatible with critical techno-progressivism. [19]

See also

  • Body modification
  • Bioconservatism
  • Bioethics
  • Biopolitics
  • Digital freedom
  • Free software movement
  • Techno-utopianism
  • Transhumanist politics


  1. ^ Jump up to:d Carrico, Dale (2004). “The Trouble with” Transhumanism “: Part Two”. Retrieved 2007-01-28 .
  2. ^ Jump up to:f Carrico, Dale (2005). “Technoprogressivism Beyond Technophilia and Technophobia” . Retrieved 2007-01-28 .
  3. Jump up^ Carrico, Dale (2006). “The Politics of Morphological Freedom” . Retrieved 2007-01-28 .
  4. Jump up^ Technoprogressive Declaration – Transvision 2014, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies
  5. Jump up^ Huesemann, Michael H., and Joyce A. Huesemann (2011). Technofix: Why Technology Will not Save Us or the Environment , New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada,ISBN 0865717044, 464 pp.
  6. Jump up^ Mander, Jerry (1991). “In the Absence of the Sacred: The Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian Nations,” Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, California.
  7. Jump up^ Rifkin, Jeremy (1998). “The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene and Remaking the World,” Jeremy P. Tarcher / Putnam, New York, New York.
  8. Jump up^ Shiva, Vandana (2000). “Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply,” South End Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  9. Jump up^ Haraway, Donna (1991). “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century” . Archived from the original on 2012-02-14 . Retrieved 2007-01-28 .
  10. Jump up^ ” ” Open Source Reality “: Douglas Rushkoff Examines the Effects of Open Source | EDUCAUSE . 2008-07-01 . Retrieved 2009-07-25.
  11. Jump up^ Dery, Mark (1994). Flame Wars: The Discourse of Cyberculture . Duke University Press. ISBN  0-8223-1540-8 .
  12. Jump up^ Mooney, Chris (2005). The Republican War on Science . Basic Books. ISBN  0-465-04676-2 .
  13. Jump up^ Sterling, Bruce (2001). “Viridian: The Manifesto of January 3, 2000” . Retrieved 2007-01-28 .
  14. Jump up^ Steffen, Alex (2006). Worldchanging: A User’s Guide for the 21st Century . Harry N. Abrams, Inc. ISBN  0-8109-3095-1 .
  15. Jump up^ Newitz, Annalee (2001). “Biopunk” . Archived from the original on 2002-12-20 . Retrieved 2007-01-26 .
  16. Jump up^ Newitz, Annalee (2002). “Genome Liberation” . Retrieved 2007-01-26 .
  17. Jump up^ Hughes, James (2004). Citizen Cyborg : Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future . Westview Press. ISBN  0-8133-4198-1 .
  18. Jump up^ Jose (2006). “Dale Carrico on Technoprogressive Politics” . Retrieved 2008-04-19 .
  19. Jump up^ Carrico, Dale (2008). ” ” Technoprogressive “: What’s In A Name?” . Retrieved 2008-04-16 .

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *